Columbia Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 13:28:58 +0000

Judiciary

Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules

April 10, 2025, 11:36 am CDT

Judge Stephen A. Vaden of the U.S. Court of International Trade responds to a question during a U.S. Senate hearing to examine his nomination to be the deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture on April 8. (Photo by Mattie Neretin/Sipa USA/Sipa via the Associated Press)

A judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade did not violate ethics rules by refusing to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University, according to the judicial council of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago.

In an April 8 decision, the council dismissed the complaint against Judge Stephen A. Vaden, one of 13 federal judges who participated in the boycott and explained why in a letter to the school.

Law360, Reuters and the Volokh Conspiracy have coverage.

President Donald Trump has nominated Vaden to be the deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Reuters reports. A U.S. Senate panel had a hearing on his nomination Tuesday.

The judges had refused to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University or Columbia Law School because of the university’s handling of disruptions caused by pro-Palestinian protesters. Columbia has become “an incubator of bigotry,” the judges said in their letter to Columbia, and the judges have lost confidence in the institution.

Vaden’s boycott and his signature on the letter do not harm the integrity of the judicial office, do not harm public confidence in the judiciary, and do not cast doubt on his impartiality, the judicial council said.

“A judge may refuse to hire law clerks from a law school or university that has, in the judge’s view, failed to foster important aspects of higher education, like civility in discourse, respect for freedom of speech and viewpoint nondiscrimination,” the opinion said.

The chief judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade had transferred the ethics complaint against Vaden to the 7th Circuit’s judicial council for review. The person who filed the ethics complaint is in prison for his role in firebombing and vandalizing Jewish synagogues.

Vaden was represented by the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit conservative legal organization, and Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly.

Judicial councils have also tossed ethics complaints against 11 of the other 12 boycotting judges, including, apparently, two federal appeals judges: Judge James C. Ho of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans and, according to Reuters, Judge Elizabeth L. Branch of the 11th Circuit at Atlanta.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Columbia student sues Trump admin over possible deportation

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:23:29 +0000

President Donald Trump listens as Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, Monday, March 24, 2025 (Pool via AP).

A Columbia University student who is currently being chased down by the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit that aims to undercut the government’s ongoing search and apparent concomitant efforts to deport her.

Yunseo Chung is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the United States since she was 7 years old, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday. Though technically a Korean national, the U.S. is “the only country she has ever known,” the 48-page lawsuit explains.

The 21-year-old junior has a 3.99 GPA and is highly engaged in various extracurricular activities, the lawsuit notes. Before that, Chung was her high school’s valedictorian. But the plaintiff’s academic achievements have seemingly been overshadowed by her participation in protests related to the Israel-Hamas war, the lawsuit says.

“Since 2023, along with hundreds of her peers, Ms. Chung has also participated in some student protests and demonstrations on Columbia University’s campus related to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the devastating toll it has taken on Palestinian civilians,” the lawsuit reads. “Ms. Chung has not made public statements to the press or otherwise assumed a high-profile role in these protests. She was, rather, one of a large group of college students raising, expressing, and discussing shared concerns.”

To hear Chung and her attorneys tell it, those low-profile rallying efforts have made her a marked woman in the Trump administration’s eyes — and, in turn, prompted government agents up and down the line to initiate a carbon copy of the process that resulted in fellow Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil’s administrative detention in a Louisiana lockup without charges.

On or around March 8, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its offshoot Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “began a series of unlawful efforts to arrest, detain, and remove Ms. Chung from the country because of her protected speech,” the lawsuit says.

While Chung seems to have evaded detention so far, on March 10, one of her attorneys fielded law enforcement requests and took note of increasingly aggressive efforts to search for and detain her.

The lawsuit explains, at length:

AUSA [Perry] Carbone stated that the Secretary of State had revoked Ms. Chung’s visa. Attorney [Naz] Ahmad explained that Ms. Chung is a U.S. permanent resident, and that she is not present in the United States on a visa.

AUSA Carbone then stated that “the Secretary of State has revoked that,” too. Counsel for Ms. Chung offered that the Secretary of State does not have the unilateral authority to revoke permanent resident status. When Attorney Ahmad inquired further, AUSA Carbone could not explain the justification for the government’s purported action.

Later that same day, AUSA Carbone texted Attorney Ahmad a copy of an administrative arrest warrant naming Ms. Chung. The administrative arrest warrant did not specify under which provision of the immigration law Ms. Chung would be subject to deportation.

Her lawyers, on the other hand, say the warrants were based on “false pretenses” and meant to arrest her because of the viewpoint of her protest activities.

“The government’s retaliation against Ms. Chung comes in a broader context of retaliation against other noncitizens who have exercised their First Amendment rights,” the lawsuit reads. “Officials at the highest levels of the federal government have made clear that they intend to use immigration enforcement to punish noncitizens who speak out in support of Palestinians and Palestinian rights, or who are perceived to have engaged in such speech.”

In both formal and germane terms, however, the government is being intentionally evasive about the present case, the complaint alleges.

Neither Chung nor her attorneys have been provided with a specific reason for why the government wants to “presumably” send her to South Korea, according to the lawsuit. Nor, has she actually been presented with an “order of removal,” the lawsuit acknowledges.

Rather, Chung likens her experience so far to Khalil’s and anticipates she will likely, if caught, be subject to similar administrative detention based on a “pattern and practice” by the Trump administration “of targeting individuals associated with protests for Palestinian rights.”

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Y’all could’ve picked me up’: Judge rips Trump admin over deportations without due process, says government could have ‘thrown me on a plane’

The lawsuit cites Khalil’s controversial case analogously and briefly explains that he eventually received an ICE-issued notice to appear which cites a section of federal law that says: “[a]n alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.”

Chung now believes she is being subjected to the same “foreign policy ground” and is moving to preempt the government’s would-be actions.

To that end, Chung’s complaint also contains a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — which serves to question the basic premise of the government’s actions in relation to protesters over the war.

The writ of habeas corpus is a 900-year-old legal protection afforded to persons against authoritarian impulses of law enforcement and government executives which allows an advocate to argue someone is being illegally confined, detained or imprisoned. It is generally considered the bedrock of the American and British legal systems.

More to the point, the writ also attempts to force the government to answer questions in court and fully account for its actions by forcing an administrative process — like ICE detention and deportation — into the more public light of a judicial process. In other words, the writ here is being sought to make sure the New York federal court retains authority over Chung’s case instead of ICE and an immigration judge.

Still, neither the plaintiff nor the government are actually confused.

While DHS and ICE have not formally issued a removal order for Chung’s deportation, they have issued a warrant. And, as the complaint notes, both President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have promised that the administration “will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”

The lawsuit takes issue with the government’s interpretation of the law and notes that many opponents of the widespread protest movement “mischaracterize peaceful protest and any speech in favor of Palestinian rights as inherently supportive of Hamas.”

So, while the Trump administration believes the stated “foreign policy” ground is the only thing necessary to deport any noncitizen based on its own subjective determination, the plaintiff-undergraduate says this decidedly vague premise is a violation of the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and various federal laws — including immigration law.

“The issuance of the administrative arrest warrant, pursuant to the Rubio Determination, is motivated by Ms. Chung’s constitutionally protected past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations,” the lawsuit reads. “The Foreign Policy Ground and its implementation through the Policy, the Rubio Determination, and Defendants-Respondents’ attempts to detain Ms. Chung violate her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment as unconstitutionally vague and violative of Ms. Chung’s substantive and procedural due process rights.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Chung’s legal effort is also not entirely unlike a shot across the bow as the government appears intent to replicate the Khalil situation with numerous foreign national students who have taken part in on-campus protests since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, which began on Oct. 7 when Hamas-led militants stormed out of Gaza into Israel and killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took around 250 people hostage. According to Gaza’s health ministry, more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began, the majority of them women and children. Authorities in Gaza do not distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters when reporting casualties.

“ICE’s shocking actions against Ms. Chung form part of a larger pattern of attempted U.S. government repression of constitutionally protected protest activity and other forms of speech,” the lawsuit goes on. “The government’s repression has focused specifically on university students who speak out in solidarity with Palestinians and who are critical of the Israeli government’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza or the pro-Israeli policies of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions. Now, officials at the highest echelons of government are attempting to use immigration enforcement as a bludgeon to suppress speech that they dislike.”

The lawsuit pleads for the SDNY to take jurisdiction over the matter, bar the Trump administration’s “unlawful Policy of targeting noncitizens for removal based on First Amendment protected speech and advocacy for Palestinian rights” in general, bar the efforts targeting Chung in particular, issue an injunction that would specifically prohibit Chung’s detention and removal from the Empire State and the U.S., and a declaratory judgment that the anti-protester immigration offensive is broadly illegal and unconstitutional.

Source link

The post Columbia student sues Trump admin over possible deportation appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Columbia law prof facing probe over campus-protest comments says firm ‘abruptly’ dropped her as client

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 10 Nov 2024 09:15:06 +0000

Law Professors

Columbia law prof facing probe over campus-protest comments says firm ‘abruptly’ dropped her as client

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 22, 2024, 3:50 pm CDT

A Columbia Law School professor has said in an ethics complaint a law firm “abandoned” her as a client during a probe of her comments about campus protests “with no notice and no explanation.” (Photo from Shutterstock)

Professor Katherine Franke said she had hired employee-side firm Outten & Golden to represent her in a school investigation of her January comments supporting pro-Palestinian students in an interview with Democracy Now!, an independent news program. She learned that she had been “abruptly” dropped in a July 12 letter, according to an Oct. 16 press release posted last week on X, formerly known as Twitter, along with her ethics complaint.

The Outten & Golden lawyer representing Franke, Kathleen Peratis, resigned in protest.

Reuters, Bloomberg Law and the Columbia Spectator have coverage.

Franke filed the Sept. 12 ethics complaint with an attorney grievance committee in New York. In a letter attached to the complaint, Peratis alleged that Outten & Golden dropped Franke as a client “because they believed that Professor Franke had become politically controversial.”

Adam Klein, managing partner at Outten & Golden, said in a statement the firm did not violate ethics rules, according to the Columbia Spectator. Klein said the firm dropped Franke after deciding that it would not handle employee speech matters related to the Israel-Gaza conflict.

“We did this after much consideration, and with the good of our firm and the well-being of our diverse workforce in mind,” the statement said.

The law school investigation initially stemmed from this comment by Franke: “So many of those Israeli students who come to the Columbia campus are coming right out of their military service and have been known to harass Palestinian and other students on our campus.” The school was investigating whether the comment constituted harassment based on national origin.

In the press release, Franke said firms have an ethical duty of loyalty to their clients after they agree to represent them.

Franke said on X her treatment by Outten & Golden “is part of a larger profession-wide problem, a McCarthy-ite reprisal against anyone who defends the dignity and rights of Palestinians. In job interviews, firms are asking my law students: ‘Are you, or have you ever been, a defender of Palestinians?’”

Klein told the Columbia Spectator that Outten & Golden was representing Franke on a pro bono basis, but the required internal approvals were not secured. Peratis told Bloomberg Law that any allegation that she circumvented firm rules before taking on the case were “absolutely, flatly false.”

Peratis told Bloomberg Law that she continues to represent Franke through the Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization.

Source link

The post Columbia law prof facing probe over campus-protest comments says firm ‘abruptly’ dropped her as client appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law grads didn’t commit misconduct, review panel says

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:07:42 +0000

Judiciary

2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law grads didn’t commit misconduct, review panel says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 17, 2024, 10:10 am CDT

Two federal judges who said they wouldn’t hire future law grads from Columbia University did not commit misconduct, according to a review panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta’s judicial council. (Photo from Shutterstock)

The review panel appeared to be referring to U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch and U.S. District Judge Tilman E. Self III of the Middle District of Georgia, the only judges who signed a letter announcing the boycott within the 11th Circuit.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law covered the Aug. 12 order released last week.

Branch and Self were among 13 federal judges who signed the letter pledging not to hire future Columbia grads for clerkships because of the school’s handling of campus disruptions. All 13 judges were appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The judges’ May 2024 letter deemed Columbia to be “an incubator of bigotry” and said the university should embrace viewpoint diversity and impose serious consequences for students and faculty who participate in campus disruptions and violate university rules.

The no-misconduct finding follows an August 2024 decision drawing the same conclusion by a review panel of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans’ judicial council. The 5th Circuit review panel found no ethics violations by eight federal judges within the 5th Circuit, including, apparently, Circuit Judge James C. Ho.

The 11th Circuit review panel affirmed a decision by the 11th Circuit Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. The order included Pryor’s June 2024 decision dismissing the complaint.

There is no basis for a finding of misconduct, Pryor had said.

“Federal judges routinely hire law clerks and must consider applicants’ educational backgrounds in determining whether an applicant is qualified for and will succeed in the job. As part of that consideration, judges are permitted to make reasonable conclusions regarding the value and quality of a school’s educational program,” he wrote.

A person who filed a complaint against the judges with the 11th Circuit said there is every reason to think that judges who are willing to punish a university and its graduates “will skew their judicial rulings in a similar manner.”

“It is no stretch of the imagination,” the complainant wrote, to conceive that the judges will “attempt to discern the political views of the parties and counsel before them and discriminate and retaliate against them.”

The complainant also called for an investigation into whether “outside organizations or foreign governments” orchestrated the judges’ letter.

Pryor responded that that the complainant’s claims lack sufficient evidence, including insufficient evidence to show that the judges “treated or will treat individuals in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner.”

Source link

The post 2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law grads didn’t commit misconduct, review panel says appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.